Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-4
Content,evaluations and influences in newspaper coverage of predictive genetic testing: A comparative media content analysis from the United Kingdom and Switzerland
Predictive genetic testing often entails challenging decisions about preventive measures and uncertain health-related risk predictions. Because of its increasing availability, it is important to assess how to debate it publicly. Newspaper content analysis represents a common and reliable way to investigate public discourse retrospectively. We thus quantitatively compare broadsheet newspaper coverage about predictive genetic testing in the United Kingdom and Switzerland during the period of 2011–2016 regarding content, evaluations, stakeholder influence, and trigger events. British coverage was more extensive and positive and included more personal stories. Swiss coverage had more focus on political issues. Angelina Jolie’s announcement about her double mastectomy was the most important coverage trigger. Researchers were the most frequently cited stakeholder group, but stakeholders from government and civil society were also represented. Our results thus reflect a movement toward a more active public engagement with predictive genetic testing. The findings help to improve and enrich public engagement regarding predictive genetic testing.
BonfadelliH (2002) Gentechnologie im Urteil der Bevölkerung: Agenda-Setting—Wissensklüfte—Konsonanzeffekte [Genetic engineering in the population’s judgement: agenda-setting – knowledge gaps – consonance effects]. In: BonfadelliHDahindenU (eds) Gentechnologie in der öffentlichen Kontroverse: Eine sozialwissenschaftliche Analyse [Genetic engineering in the public controversy: A social science analysis.]. Zürich: Seismo, pp. 47–96.
4.
BonfadelliHDahindenULeonarzM (2002) Biotechnology in Switzerland: High on the public agenda, but only moderate support. Public Understanding of Science11: 113–130.
5.
BorzekowskiDLGGuanYSmithKCErbyLHRoterDL (2014) The Angelina effect: Immediate reach, grasp, and impact of going public. Genetics in Medicine16(7): 516–521.
6.
BubelaT (2006) Science communication in transition: Genomics hype, public engagement, education and commercialization pressures. Clinical Genetics70(5): 445–450.
7.
BubelaTMCaulfieldTA (2004) Do the print media “hype” genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. Canadian Medical Association Journal = journal de l’Association medicale canadienne170(9): 1399–1407.
8.
BucchiM (2008) Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 57–76.
9.
Catalan-MatamorosDPeñafiel-SaizC (2017) The use of traditional media for public communication about medicines: A systematic review of characteristics and outcomes. Health Communication. Epub ahead of print 18 December. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2017.1405485.
10.
CaulfieldT (2004) Biotechnology and the popular press: Hype and the selling of science. Trends in Biotechnology22(7): 337–339.
11.
CaulfieldTChandrasekharanSJolyYCook-DeeganR (2013) Harm, hype and evidence: ELSI research and policy guidance. Genome Medicine5(3): 21.
12.
Comparis (2012) Akzeptanz von Analysen des eigenen Erbguts [Acceptance of analyses of one’s own genetic material]. Zürich: Comparis.
13.
ConditC (2001) What is “public opinion” about genetics?Nature Reviews Genetics2(10): 811–815.
14.
DaviesSR (2013) Constituting public engagement: Meanings and genealogies of PEST in two U.K. studies. Science Communication35(6): 687–707.
15.
EsserF (2000) Journalismus vergleichen: Journalismustheorie und komparative Forschung. In: LöffelholzM (ed.) Theorien des Journalismus: Ein diskursives Handbuch [Comparing journalism: Journalism theory and comparative research. In: Löffelholz M (ed.) Theories of Journalism: A Discursive Handbook]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 123–146.
16.
EvansDGWiselyJClancyTLallooFWilsonMJohnsonRet al. (2015) Longer term effects of the Angelina Jolie effect: Increased risk-reducing mastectomy rates in BRCA carriers and other high-risk women. Breast Cancer Research17(1): 143.
17.
Evers-KieboomsGClaesEDenayerLDecruyenaereM (2001) Predictive genetic testing: Psychological impact. In: CooperDN (ed.) Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 674–677.
FishmanJMCasarettD (2006) Mass media and medicine: When the most trusted media mislead. Mayo Clinic Proceedings81(3): 291–293.
20.
FreedmanRMountainHKarinaDSchofieldL (2016) A retrospective exploration of the impact of the “Angelina Jolie effect” on the single state-wide familial cancer program in Perth, Western Australia. Journal of Genetic Counseling26: 52–62.
21.
FrühWSchönbachK (1982) Der dynamisch-transaktionale Ansatz: Ein neues Paradigma der Medienwirkungen [The dynamic-transactional approach: A new paradigm of media effects]. Publizistik27: 75–88.
22.
FrühWSchönbachK (2005) Der dynamisch-transaktionale Ansatz III: Eine Zwischenbilanz [The Dynamic Transactional Approach III: A mid-term review]. Publizistik50(1): 4–20.
23.
GarrettJMBirdSJ (2000) Ethical issues in communicating science. Science and Engineering Ethics6(4): 435–442.
24.
GaskellGAllumNBauerMDurantJAllansdottirABonfadelliHet al. (2000) Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology18: 935–938.
25.
GerhardsJSchäferMS (2007) Die Herstellung einer öffentlichen Hegemonie: Humangenomforschung in der deutschen und der US-amerikanischen Presse [The creation of public hegemony: human genome research in the German and American press]. Wiesbaden: Springer-Verlag
26.
GerhardsJSchäferMS (2009) Two normative models of science in the public sphere: Human genome sequencing in German and US mass media. Public Understanding of Science18(4): 437–451.
HallinDCManciniP (2011) Comparing Media Systems beyond the Western World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
HaranJKitzingerJ (2013) Human genetics and cloning in the media: Mapping the research field. In: AtkinsonPGlasnerPLockM (eds) Handbook of Genetics and Society: Mapping the New Genomic Era. Abingdon: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 203–221.
30.
HendersonLKitzingerJ (2007) Orchestrating a science “event”: The case of the human genome project. New Genetics and Society26(1): 65–83.
31.
HivonMLehouxPDenisJLRockM (2010) Marginal voices in the media coverage of controversial health interventions: How do they contribute to the public understanding of science?Public Understanding of Science19(1): 34–51.
32.
HjörleifssonSÁrnasonVScheiE (2008) Decoding the genetics debate: Hype and hope in Icelandic news media in 2000 and 2004. New Genetics and Society27(4): 377–394.
33.
HoltonAECanaryHEWongB (2017) Business and breakthrough: Framing (expanded) genetic carrier screening for the public. Health Communication32: 1051–1058.
34.
JarrenOVogelM (2011) „Leitmedien“ als Qualitätsmedien: Theoretisches Konzept und Indikatoren. In: BlumRBonfadelliHImhofKJarrenO (eds) Krise der Leuchttürme öffentlicher Kommunikation: Vergangenheit und Zukunft der Qualitätsmedien [“Leading media” as high-quality media: Theoretical concept and indicators. In: Blum/Bonfadelli/Imhof/Jarren (eds) Crisis of the lighthouses of public communication: past and future of high-quality media]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, pp. 17–30.
35.
JebrilNAlbækEVreeseCH (2013) Infotainment, cynicism and democracy: The effects of privatization vs personalization in the news. European Journal of Communication28(2): 105–121.
JonesRAL (2011) Introduction: Public engagement in an evolving science policy landscape. In: BennetDJJenningsRC (eds) Successful Science Communication: Telling It Like It Is. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–14.
38.
KamenovaKRavitskyVMcMullinSCaulfieldT (2016) Media portrayal of non-invasive prenatal testing: A missing ethical dimension. JCOM15(02): A3.
39.
KamenovaKReshefACaulfieldT (2014) Angelina Jolie’s faulty gene: Newspaper coverage of a celebrity’s preventive bilateral mastectomy in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Genetics in Medicine16(7): 522–528.
40.
KolbS (2004) Voraussetzungen für und gewinnbringende Anwendung von quasiexperimentellen Ansätzen in der kulturvergleichenden Kommunikationsforschung. In: WirthWLaufEFahrA (eds) Einführung, Problematisierungen und Aspekte der Methodenlogik aus kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Perspektive [Requirements for and profitable application of quasi-experimental approaches in comparative cultural communication research. In: Wirth W, Lauf E and Fahr A (eds) Introduction, problematization and aspects of the logic of methodology from a communication science perspective]. Köln: Von Halem, pp. 157–178.
41.
KolbS (2005) Mediale Thematisierung in Zyklen: Theoretischer Entwurf und empirische Anwendung [Medial thematization in cycles: Theoretical design and empirical application]. Köln: Von Halem.
42.
KolbS (2015) Vielfalt im Fernsehen. Eine Komparative Studie zur Entwicklung von TV-Märkten in Westeuropa [Diversity on television. A comparative study on the development of TV markets in Western Europe]. Konstanz: UVK-Verlag.
43.
LeboPBQuehenbergerFKamolzL-PLumentaDB (2015) The Angelina effect revisited: Exploring a media-related impact on public awareness. Cancer121(22): 3959–3964.
44.
LewisCChoudhuryMChittyLS (2015) “Hope for safe prenatal gene tests.” A content analysis of how the UK press media are reporting advances in non-invasive prenatal testing. Prenatal Diagnosis35(5): 420–427.
45.
LockSJ (2011) Deficits and dialogues: Science communication and the public understanding of science in the UK. In: BennetDJJenningsRC (eds) Successful Science Communication: Telling It Like It Is. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 17–30.
46.
LynchJParrottAHopkinRJMyersM (2011) Media coverage of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling20(5): 486–494.
47.
MaierS (2010) All the news fit to post? Comparing news content on the web to newspapers, television, and radio. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly87(3–4): 548–562.
48.
MayringP (2015) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative content analysis: basics and techniques]. Weinheim: Beltz.
49.
MetagJSchäferMS (2016) Wissenschaftsbarometer Schweiz [Science barometer of Switzerland]. Available at: http://www.wissenschaftsbarometer.ch/ (accessed 20 November 2018).
50.
MiahA (2005) Genetics, cyberspace and bioethics: Why not a public engagement with ethics?Public Understanding of Science14(4): 409–421.
O’MahonyPSchäferMS (2005) The “book of life” in the press: Comparing German and Irish media discourse on human genome research. Social Studies of Science35(1): 99–130.
53.
PatzeltWJ (1997) Einführung in die Politikwissenschaft: Grundriß des Faches und studiumsbegleitende Orientierung [Introduction to political science: outline of the discipline and study-related orientation]. Passau: Rothe.
54.
RinalloDBasuroyS (2009) Does advertising spending influence media coverage of the advertiser?Journal of Marketing73(6): 33–46.
55.
RoweGFrewerLJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values30(2): 251–290.
56.
SchäferMS (2009) From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication30(4): 475–505.
57.
SchwitzerGMudurGHenryDWilsonAGooznerMSimbraMet al. (2005) What are the roles and responsibilities of the media in disseminating health information?PLoS Medicine2: e215.
58.
ScottWA (2009) Scott’s Pi. In: KrippendorffKBlockMA (eds) The Content Analysis Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 347–349.
59.
SmartA (2003) Reporting the dawn of the post-genomic era: Who wants to live forever?Sociology of Health & Illness25(1): 24–49.
60.
StilgoeJLockSJWilsdonJ (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science?Public Understanding of Science23(1): 4–15.
61.
TeuneHPrzeworskiA (1970) The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
WeigoldMF (2001) Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication23(2): 164–193.
65.
WeingartP (2005) Die Wissenschaft der Öffentlichkeit: Essays zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft, Medien und Öffentlichkeit [The science of the public: Essays about the relationship between science, media and the public]. Weilerswist: Velbrück.
66.
WeishaarHDorfmanLFreudenbergNHawkinsBSmithKRazumOet al. (2016) Why media representations of corporations matter for public health policy: A scoping review. BMC Public Health16: 899.
67.
WirthWKolbS (2004) Designs and methods of comparative political communication research. In: EsserF (ed.) Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–111.
68.
WirthWKolbS (2013) Securing equivalence: Problems and solutions. In: EsserFHanitzschT (eds) The Handbook of Comparative Communication Research. London: Routledge, pp. 469–485.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
